Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by scaesare, May 15, 2014.
Seems pretty accurate as far as info we've gleaned here:
SLATE.COM GIGAFACTORY ARTICLE
My observation about starting 2 (or more) GF sites at the same time - the cost of starting 2 at once, compared to the risk of a delay when doing 1, amounts to small insurance. And outside of a stupendously bad outcome at the second site, it's insurance that not only buys some risk mitigation, it also shortens the time to GF #2.
At 500k cars/year for each GF, Tesla will be needing 10 Gigafactories eventually to be shipping 5M cars/year. Whether that's really the intent or not, if Tesla is shipping 500k cars/year, then 1M cars/year isn't far off and that's GF #2. Then 1.5M for GF #3....
My personal takeaway - starting two GF sites is more about getting an early start on GF #2 than it is risk mitigation. It just serves both purposes.
I like people and companies that think big about important problems.
More to the point, it puts pressure on the local approvals bodies to move their own site ahead as fast as possible. Otherwise they risk losing the plant to the other location. If they drag their feet it will become a major political issue for them locally, and Tesla doesn't have to lift a finger to encourage this. Clever strategy.
Yeah its very smart way to put pressure on local politicians to speed up the process without using methods that result in making enemies and/or bad PR.